{ "id": 1724122, "name": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. James Henry Clay et ux", "name_abbreviation": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. Clay", "decision_date": "1966-11-28", "docket_number": "5-4037", "first_page": "501", "last_page": "504", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "241 Ark. 501" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "408 S.W.2d 600" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "231 Ark. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697220 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ark. 979", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1646527 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/224/0979-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 321, "char_count": 4316, "ocr_confidence": 0.527, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08, "percentile": 0.3270565195113692 }, "sha256": "1d49f6b969f080cb8889882ee0820aa1a8e93a4ccb4d0442f2632120749041f2", "simhash": "1:9f84405c214838e8", "word_count": 719 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. James Henry Clay et ux" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nThis is an eminent domain proceeding.\nOn May 25,1965 the Arkansas State Highway Commission (appellant) filed suit to condemn several lots and parts of lots owned by James Henry Clay and his wife (appellees) for use in construction of Interstate Highway No. 40. A jury verdict awarded appellees the sum of $22,500.\nWhen appellant attempted to prosecute an appeal to this Court it learned that, due to a defect in the reporter\u2019s recording machine, all of the testimony and proceedings had not been recorded and that a complete record could not be furnished. Thereupon appellant prepared and served on appellees its statement of evidence and proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-2127.11 (Repl. 1962). Then appellees filed objections and amendments to appellant\u2019s statement (in accord with the same statute) over the objections of appellant.\nOn June 9, 1966 the trial court approved the statements of both parties, and on the same day appellant 'filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the failure to obtain a complete record was the result of the unavoidable situation above mentioned. The motion was denied, and this appeal follows.\nOne. We find no merit in appellant\u2019s contention the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial. Appellant\u2019s remedy was to prepare its \u201cstatement of the evidence or proceedings . . .\u201d by the method provided in said section 27-2127.11. This section has previously been construed by tbis Court (against tbe contention of appellant) in Mowrey v. Coleman, 224 Ark. 979, 277 S. W. 2d 481, and Tomlin v. Reynolds Mining Corp., 231 Ark. 393, 329 S. W. 2d 552.\nTwo. As previously mentioned, appellant prepared a statement and presented it to tbe trial court for approval pursuant to tbe statute above mentioned. A copy of tbis statement was served on appellees in due time. It appears, however, tbat appellee failed to serve its objections or proposed amendments within tbe time (ten days) required by the same statute. However, tbe trial court approved appellees\u2019 statement. We think tbe court was in error, but we also think it was harmless error. It must be kept in mind (as was referred to in tbe Mowery case, supra) tbat tbe jury bad already reached its decision before it was learned tbat a complete transcript of tbe testimony and proceedings could not be obtained. They beard and considered all tbe testimony. Therefore tbe burden was on appellant to show error or lack of substantial evidence to support the verdict. As pointed out hereafter, appellant has not met tbat burden.\nThree. We do not agree with the contention of appellant tbat tbe trial court should have declared a mistrial.\nDuring tbe trial appellees\u2019 witnesses made references to damages caused to lots outside of tbe taking. Each time such a reference was made appellant objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. On one occasion tbe trial court reprimanded appellees rather severely. At no time did tbe witnesses attempt to say to what extent appellee had been damaged. We are unable to see bow tbe jury was prejudiced in favor of appellees or against appellant. In this connection appellant calls particular attention to remarks made by appellees\u2019 attorney in addressing tbe jury, to which objection was made by appellant. All tbe attorney said was: \u201c. . .we are not permitted under tbe law ... to talk about tbis type of damage. \u201d . . . \u201c The court has instructed us that we could not consider those damages in arriving at our damages.\u201d The trial court was not asked to give the jury any cautionary instruction, and we do not think it was an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse a new trial.\nFour. Finally, appellant contends \u201cthere is no substantial evidence to support the verdict\u201d. Again, we do not agree.\nThe record contains twenty three pages of testimony which the court reporter verified, and to which appellant makes no objection. Included therein is the testimony of several qualified witnesses each of whom valued the property damage at approximately $8,000 more than the amount fixed by the jury.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul Ward, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "George 0. Green and Don Langston, for appellant.", "Robinson & Rogers and N. D. Edwards, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. James Henry Clay et ux\n5-4037\n408 S. W. 2d 600\nOpinion delivered November 28, 1966\nGeorge 0. Green and Don Langston, for appellant.\nRobinson & Rogers and N. D. Edwards, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0501-01", "first_page_order": 523, "last_page_order": 526 }